It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Under your acceptance of time there must be a force that is time/time.

Since using your skewed logic

Where B = to space time braid

matter = S + T (B)

rate = (S+T) per T

rate= (S+T) per S+T/S

rate/S= (S+T) per T

Now try and isolate either the positional place in Space or the increment of time that no longer carries a factor of matter or space in determining the rate of which your space+time (B) Braid can move.....


That is totally flawed logic.

Though I will give you a distinction for your algebra


If you can't visualise what a braid is, or even agree with a definition of what space-time is, how can you come up with anything to describe its movement through space-time?

I am simply stating what the time element of space-time actually could be, a conclusion drawn from loop quantum theory.

Time from our perspective is measured by change. You cannot measure time if you have no change to measure it by. However that statement is not the same as saying because there is no detectable change that there is no time!!

You see even at the braid level we can actually apply general relativity, as all braids move through space-time, as I mentioned earlier the movement of the braid itself is like a slip knot along a rope..

The very movement of the braids is what gives us the impression of time. If all braids were to stand still within space-time then there could be no changes to the braids (they could not tangle), there would be no time.

So the concept of time is the movement of matter/energy on space-time.

I would also state that this also means that time can move at different rates, it can go slow or fast, though from our perspective if everything is subject to the same increase or decrease then we have no direct frame of reference to detect the speed changes.

That said some if not all of us seem to have a deep seated notion that we are travelling through time and that time seems to speed up or slow down (albeit mostly environmental and down to the individual) though this theory really does mean it is possible for time to speed up or slow down or even stop for a while without us noticing.

The time element of space-time is literally the movement of braids. This incidentally is what causes the braids to vibrate; it is this vibration that is conceptualised by String Theory.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Neon Haze]




posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
So conceptually, if one could manipulate these "braids", then one could turn back "time" right? For example, the braids in the universe would be in one position at lets say 12pm on 8/20/06, if you then manipulated the braids to represent this record of the braids positions, would that then turn "time backwards"? Or if one stoped the braids movement in an object, would that object be indestructable then, as it would not be changing?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
this may explain astral projection.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Neon Haze, I have read the first page but can't see the idea of this theory. What are the implications of these braids?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Indeed, this is not an answer to everything because we don't know if it's true!



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alex Dude
Neon Haze, I have read the first page but can't see the idea of this theory. What are the implications of these braids?


Hey Alex Dude

How is it going?

No relation to certain coder called DARK_ALEX are you???

The implications are absolutely staggering. For one thing Quantum loop gravity explains what gravity actually is.

Einstein although was right to observe the curvature of space time and put this down to a mysterious property of mass. He was unable to state where the mass came from other than to say that mass = energy and visa versa.

Quantum loop gravity simply explains that we are if you like (string theory concept) on a brane.... kind of like a film of soap over a bubble blower. Matter and energy arise from quantum fluctuations on this brane, causing the brain at the planc level to twist and turn randomly.

Abstract but true realisation of this concept is if you have ever left a whole bunch of cables together in a room for a while and then gone back to them to discover they are all tangled.....

Nutshell - It means that you and I and everything in the universe is actually made from the same fundamental thing... SPACE.

So what does this all mean for us.... and why can't I use this to totally alter reality right now???

Well the truth is you can alter reality... but the main issue is that because we are all one and there is an overall consensus amongst the majority of thoughts that believe in the illusion of the world that it is hard for one to use the known information.

But the good news is that the idea is spreading. and fast. The more people that understand that what we see as reality is merely what we choose to see then the faster the veil that covers our minds will come down.

Sounds all too metaphysical for most but the principle is held firmly in HARD Scientific and Mathematic facts.

IF we are able to harness the power of this principle then the first thing it would mean is totally unlimited and complete power to create anything at will, including pure energy.

We would have evolved past our childhood and into a new era.

However.....

For the more shady side.....

What the mathematics are showing us is that there is a rather uncanny, in fact a little too uncanny link between the data we are seeing and the data produced by a quantum computer.....

So the reason this all maybe actually possible is that truly none of this is real and we are all trapped inside a large quantum computational device....

Which ever way you would like to take it, one thing is certain, further developments will be very interesting. Go with you heart and mind together not just your mind for then you are normally not wrong.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   


Don't put all your stock into these theories. I believe they're good beginning theories, but as far as knowing everything is concerned - there's alot more to knowing everything than this. It's an interesting hypothesis but particle physics has a long, long way to go. Many lifetimes are going to be needed, for sure. This is my opinion though, based on taking modern physics and subatomic physics. The math behind some of this stuff isn't always legit...mostly fit to their theories.

Remember, no matter how much sense something seems to make, it's really the math behind it that paints the picture.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
What I find amazing is if you have ever read anything about Terrance Mckenna and his timewave zero theory then you compare that with theories like loop quantum gravity there are some striking coincidences as far as some sort of singularity type event.......the rate at which knowledge and technology are advancing it really makes you wonder how different things can be or will be in the next 5-6 years beyond what we could even imagine today.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by etshrtslr]

[edit on 14-10-2006 by etshrtslr]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
i've skimmed through the last 4 pages, and even though my bosses are liekly to chew on my arse for this, i'm ready to make a reply that has some substance to it.

first off - robetfenix

ok, the basic building block, you claim, is the electron. your login in assuming so is fair, but you're also completely neglecting quarks, which build electrons. if you go further down, basically this theory is claiming that quarks are essentially knots in a string - string theory. the way i visualize this (and i'm a failed physics major, so take what i have to say with a grain of salt) is as so - if you lend any credence to the membrane theory, you could say that our universe was creted by two 'sheets', basically unravelling a ball of yarn (our universe as a singularity is comparable to the ball being ravelled). as it expanded, due to the force with which it was unravelled, the strings that made it up vibrated wildly. in doing so, these 'strings' looped around themselves, creating knots, causing a potentially flat universe to have some definition. i don't think this theory necessarily negates particles, it merely re-defines them, and the stuff they're made from. the part people seem to ignore is the makeup of the strings themselves...there's always something more.

and as for your arguments about time...i think i disagree.

time is both a constant which may be relative when measured, and a unit of measure. let me clarify - on a whole, the universe has a constant time. it has been around for so long, has been expanding at a certain rate, and will continue to do so. time is a dimension, though not a spatial one - i think this is where your confusion in definition comes from. the observational quality of time is our measurment. the truth of it is something quite a bit more difficult to conceptualize.

that probably wasn't much help, but my mind is elsewhere at the moment.

neon haze - i really thank you for bringing this to our attention, it's probably one of the most fascinating theories i've read. something you've neglected in your possibilities, however - creation is entirely possible, but so is deletion. if we're all simply data, war might not be fought in the same manner anymore - the more technologically advanced nation or party simply deletes the opposition from existence, or replaces them with something more pleasing. of course, this could lead to massive bugs in the system - we could potentially crash the entire universe if we enter into this kind of power blindly and ignorantly. this is the kind of information that, even if it is true, while it holds immense possibilities for the advancement of mankind, should be kept under wraps until we have reached at least a basic sense of decency amongst ourselves. as much as it saddens me to say this, no matter how promising this theory and accompanying research proves to be, it's a road best left untravelled for some time to come.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
If this theory is correct, then would it be possible to manipulate energy and mass using nanotechnology? Or by some other means?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   
not very likely. the scale is far too small - smaller than electrons, even, smaller than the wavelength of light. it would be impossible to create a physically manipulable object of the size required to manipulate these knots in such a manner - a field of some sort would be required. absolutely intense magnetic fields might do the job, but i fear that they would be found wholly inefficient.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be impossible to acually manipulate these braids (to me that's kind of the other poinr of the thory - the strings are more like Rules). I mean ofcourse you can manipulate them by moving around and stuff (or acually they manipulate you to move around) I don't think that it can go the other way around...



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
it was impossible to manipulate atoms 100 years ago, but now we've got microwaves, nuclear weapons and power plants, supercolliders...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Just noticed this -- congratulations on the paper! A fine collaborative effort and an elegant and original concept!

I do have a novice question, though (I'm no physicist!) : As I understand it, the problem with string theory is that it has yet to make a successful verifiable prediction. Does your model address the flaws (or, rather, correct them) to any extent? (my math is weak enough that I couldn't work that one out!)



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Interesting indeed...what a mind trip.

So hypothetically, someone could have already figured out how to manipulate braids, and we would have no clue of how "unreal" our life here is.

Again, mind blowing...

Interesting, love to know more even if it does blow the mind.


Peace

Dalen



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Just noticed this -- congratulations on the paper! A fine collaborative effort and an elegant and original concept!


Hi there Byrd.

I wish I could say that this masterpiece was my own but it is not. Though I was one of the first to read it.


I do have a novice question, though (I'm no physicist!) : As I understand it, the problem with string theory is that it has yet to make a successful verifiable prediction. Does your model address the flaws!


I'm very glad you asked that question.

The one thing that String theory has a problem with is actually describing what we see around us today.

In fact String theory even has a problem explaining why there has to be 11 dimensions (other than it makes the maths neat)


All the maths you need to know is that loop quantum gravity accurately describes the elementary particles in terms of mass and charge.

This is why Loop Quantum gravity is truly a revelation because we have the maths for braids that describe the properties of observable matter. We have been able to find the very basic of elemental particles so far.

Also... this goes along way to understanding the decay of the more exotic particles discovered by proton acceleration (see CERN for more on this)...You see when 2 protons collide what is actually happening is the braids that describe the protons are becoming more random (exotic) but also less stable, so they collapse back into space-time (brain)

This Theory in such a short time has overtaken m-theory and truly changes every thing.

One thing is for certain now, we can never find a mysterious particle that adds mass to matter (the higgs bosson). This so called god particle wont be able to state where mass comes from any different from any other particle.

In fact this theory should bring the whole particle physics community to a point of total hysteria, as although it does seem pointless now to smash particles together with the purpose of finding the most fundamental, they are the only ones currently that could be considered to be actually altering braids directly if not creating them.

Anyway..

All the best people,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
neon haze, i hate to be a bother, but were my posts more or less accurate? i don't want to remain misinformed if that's the case.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I'm no physicist or mathematician (I have a severe learning disability when it comes to mathematics and am presently only at roughly the high school level of education, whatever that means to whoever reads this) but for the sake of diplomacy and understanding between the varying viewpoints expressed so far in this thread, I wanted to ask:

Am I correct in understanding that this and other theories which regard matter as being comprised of quanta in various configurations are not so much about saying that subatomic particles do not exist at all, but rather, that subatomic particles are one of at least two (the other being wave theory) conceptual means of visualizing or expressing very specific, ordered regions of space-time having specific properties or attributes and that those attributes (i.e. spin, charge, mass, etc.) may in actuality likewise be specific distributions of density of space-time itself, and so forth? In other words, I can conceive of a photon traveling through space and explain much of its observable and theorized effects within the confines of that conceptualization, but can do the same (and arguably more) by instead conceiving of it as a wave form propagating in space-time. Likewise, I can imagine very minute wave forms or particles being responsible for attractive and repulsive forces, or I can imagine differing densities in different curvature in varying forms existing in space-time shaping, directing, and producing these forces. So these theories aren't saying that particles don't exist. They are simply using alternate conceptualizations that aren't particles in order to better (or more completely) explain theorized or observed aspects of physical reality.

Is that correct?

I ask this in the hope that it will ameliorate the disputes seen earlier in this thread between the particle and quantum "crowds," for lack of a better term.

If so (and again, I'm far from being able to grasp this probably, so this question may be entirely insignificant,) one question that springs to my mind is, "what exactly is density of space-time?" What makes one region of space-time denser than another at such a minute scale? Is it simply the presence of more information? If so, what is this information? It cannot be "nothing," as it clearly is "something," but what? Could there be an infinitely fine "medium" at the bottom of this cosmic spectrum that constitutes this "something?" If nothing else, this certainly makes me look forward to learning more as I try to get my education back on track in the coming years/decades/however long it takes me.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
neon haze, i hate to be a bother, but were my posts more or less accurate? i don't want to remain misinformed if that's the case.


sorry I haven't reply your post 25Cent.

You are actually spot on.


not many have been able to grasp the direct correlation of the data to every day experience.

And I have to say that you have managed to express this concept and theory in a way that is easy and pleasant to read.

I also liked your thoughts towards potentially reading a whole section of the brane only to delete it in an act of self preservation in times of war. Causing the universe to crash is another very interesting if not scary idea.

all the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm no physicist or mathematician (I have a severe learning disability when it comes to mathematics and am presently only at roughly the high school level of education, whatever that means to whoever reads this) but for the sake of diplomacy and understanding between the varying viewpoints expressed so far in this thread, I wanted to ask:

Please forgive me for posting off topic here.....AceWombat....I cant answer your question but your post was really intelligent and well thought out....no need to apologize to anyone for any preceived lack of a formal education



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join